Re: [PATCH] Only warn about missing branch.<n>.merge in pull.

From: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Date: Dec 19, 2006, 01:14 UTC
Message-ID: <7v7iwovg99.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
In-Reply-To: <200612190159.58658.Josef.Weidendorfer@gmx.de>

Josef Weidendorfer <Josef.Weidendorfer@gmx.de> writes:

Show 14 quoted lines

> On Monday 18 December 2006 21:43, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>> 
>> However, I would actually reuse our versatile (often hated?) config  
>> handling:
>> 
>> [branch "xyz"]
>> 	remote = blabla # this is the default remote
>> 	merge = master # this is the default branch for the default remote
>> 	merge = pu for remote second # merge 'pu' if pulling from second
>
> Looks a little bit confusing, but is fine with me.
> I even would remove the need for the word "remote" in the second merge line.
> Anybody using this has to look it up in the documentation, anyway.
> Because these options are not really self-describing.

I actually am in favor of Johannes's one, except that it does look like you are always making a pentapus merge of pu, for, remote and second branches into xyz ;-).